• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Responds After Report Reveals His Birthday Letter to Jeffrey Epstein

So Jeff was 66 when he died.
As of 2019 trump said he hadn't talk to him for 15 years.
So this falls into the scope of when trump admits he was talking to him.
But trump being a ****ing liar who knows
 
Allan said:
This will ratchet up the heat!





www.newsweek.com

Trump responds after report on birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein

The president threatened to sue The Wall Street Journal over its report on a letter sent to Jeffrey Epstein on the sex offender's 50th birthday.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...

The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
 
Plasmaball said:
So Jeff was 66 when he died.
As of 2019 trump said he hadn't talk to him for 15 years.
So this falls into the scope of when trump admits he was talking to him.
But trump being a ****ing liar who knows
Click to expand...
It does fall within the period of time that Epstein was abusing children.
 
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...
Did you read the WSJ article?
 
So wait am I reading one person thinks this was a joke or am I not reading that right?
Breecause the wsj isnt the onion.
 
trixare4kids said:
Here's the real story as reported by the WSJ, not what I would consider a Breaking News Story.

Note, the adjective, bawdy in their tweet below because the originator of this thread sure did not. That's my one and only refutation to a thread that really isn't a big deal.

bawd·y
[ˈbôdē]
adjective
  1. dealing with sexual matters in a comical way; humorously indecent:
    "her work is characterized by irreverence and bawdy humor" · "cheeky puns and bawdy songs"

Click to expand...


A big concern here, besides Trump trading sexual banter with a mass pedophile, is Trump discussing their mutual "secret".

If that don't set-off alarms, I don't know what will?
 
Allan said:
Did you read the WSJ article?
Click to expand...

I did.

"officlals familar with...."

That's called anonymous.

You are welcome to cite the actual named sources.
 
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...
Why would you care? 🤣
 
The Brad Dad said:
I think we all understand this is a risqué card for a sex trafficker from some of his clients. Did you mean to point out the obvious and pretend it exonerates Trump?
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Trump himself was found civilly liable for Sexual Assault.

Trump's only saving grace was his actions were beyond the criminal statute of limitations.
 
The Brad Dad said:
Why would you care? 🤣
Click to expand...

Well you care when you've got a graduate degree, you understand how to cite things and you also understand sourcing.

Allan said:
Well we'll all have to consider who has more credibility - the WSJ or yourself.
Click to expand...

No I have to consider the sourcing regardless of the messenger.

The only people who don't understand that are the people who keep using little dots on arrows and can't understand using arrows for bias while calling it a fact check.

They're so dumb they don't even realize the laughter related to their ignorance.
 
Chomsky said:
Let's not forget that Trump himself was found civilly liable for Sexual Assault.

Trump's only saving grace was his actions were beyond the criminal statute of limitations.
Click to expand...
But that was a kangaroo court. And the jan 6 committee was a kangaroo committee. And and and. A decade of adults hand waving away any inconvenient truth, and a media ready to assist.
 
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...
No sir, you apparently do not have a clue how journalism actually works.

Even the best of journalism, most sources are not revealed by name for very good reason (to protect them, and be able to get at stories of controversy). Good institutions of journalism, such as the WSJ have a process for authenticating the story. There is usually is a corroborating source The reporter and his boss know who the primary and corroborating source is. They are responsible for being reasonably certain that the source and the corroborator is in a position to know. The reporters boss, his accountable to his/her editor (their boss). Depending on the magnitude of the story, there may be several people up the chain of command that ensure the line reporters and their bosses have done their job.

Sorry, but the WSJ is one of the foremost newspapers in the world. Moreover, its not actually an unfriendly newspaper to Trump, so they have little motive to run stories adverse to him. The WSJ, as a first rate newspaper, well vets anything that they print. You can count on this story being substantially true. If you can't accept the story as written, I am afraid you will have to find a better rationalization than the source was not named, as this one is very weak.

That all said, I am not certain what you are trying to accomplish here. The reality is that Trump isn't a choir boy and has a history of sexual abuse. This story is consistent with what we already know about his character.
 
Last edited:
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...
Leave my Donald alone!!!! :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom